Search This Blog

Subscribe to this blog

Follow by Email

My intro to the Battle of Ideas debate on 'Antisemitism Today'

I was invited by Claire Fox to take part in this event. Here are my introductory remarks. I was alongside, among others, Melanie Phillips, Brendan O'Neill, and Richard Angel (Progress).

You might wonder why I, a philosopher, have been invited on to this panel. I guess the reason is I'm interested in and have published on the ways in which bullshit beliefs - myths and prejudices - can get a grip on public thinking.

I wrote a book called Believing Bullshit - How Not To Fall Into an Intellectual Black Hole which flags up some of the key signs that we are dealing with a with a myth or prejudice rather than rational belief.

So how, in particular do prejudices regarding women, black people, Jews and so on get started?
Well, once it's been suggested that a certain group have some 'problem' - that women have abad driving problem, say, or Jews have a greed problem, it's usually not hard to find examples.

After all, inevitably, some women are terrible drivers. And inevitably, some Jewish people are greedy.

Indeed, once it's suggested there may be a 'problem', people will often start to find their own examples. Often, they'll notice the really emotionally arresting examples and then later be able to recite them with ease - a woman who caused an awful motorway pile-up that killed several children, for example.

Once this pattern of thought has set in - it's called confirmation bias - where we search only for positive instances to confirm what we already suspect is true - people can easily convince themselves of things that aren't true.

They may become so convinced, in fact, that if we present them with hard evidence that women are just as good - perhaps even better - drivers than men, they'll dismiss it out of hand. They'll insist it's just obvious that women are bad drivers - everyone knows women are bad drivers - that they can point to lots of examples of women being bad drivers.

And yet this supposed evidence that women have a 'bad driving problem' is of course entirely useless and ancedotal. Obviously some women really are very bad drivers. There's no denying that. But of course, that doesn't remotely justify the conclusion that 'women have a bad driving problem' - i.e. that women are worse drivers than are men.

I'm sure we all recognise such anecdote-driven patterns of thought are one of the main ways racial and other prejudices get a grip: including anti-semitism.

So, now let's consider the charge that Labour has an anti-semitism problem.

Public Opinion

It's now widely considered obvious that Labour has an anti-semitism problem - that levels of anti-semitism are higher in Labour, or higher on the Left - than elsewhere.

Indeed, many now suppose anti-semitism is rampant on the Left.

For example:

This summer 68 Rabbis signed a letter saying: "As British rabbis, it is with great regret that we find it necessary to write, yet antisemitism within sections of the Labour party has become so severe and widespread that we must speak out with one Jewish voice."

The Jerusalem Post' has claimed that 'Britain’s Labour Party has a major problem with rampant antisemitism.'

New York Post ran a leader that 'Britain's Left is melting down over rampant antisemitism'
This finger-pointing at the Left matters. In fact it may well influence the outcome of the next general election. Labour are increasingly viewed as toxic because of the this perpetually repeated allegation that it's now riven with anti-semitism.

The Evidence

What's the evidence supporting the allegation that Labour has an anti-semitism problem? For the most part it consists of a few hundred complaints to the Labour Party, out of well over half a million members. That's a small fraction of one percent of the membership.

And then there are various other alleged cases of left anti-semitism that have been featured very heavily in the media.

That's it. That's pretty much all the evidence. But of course this is, again, entirely anecdotal, cherry-picked evidence.

Citing such examples no more supports the allegation that 'Labour has an anti-semitism problem' than it supports the allegation that women have a bad driving problem.

This is not to say that there is no antisemitism in Labour - obviously there is. But the suggestion that the Left is riddled with anti-semitism is clearly entirely unjustified. Indeed, drawing that conclusion on the basis of that sort of evidence is a classic example of confirmation bias.

Actually there is plenty of much better quality evidence concerning levels anti-semitism on the Left. However, all this evidence flatly contradicts the claim that there's more anti-semitism in Labour or on the Left than there is elsewhere. For example:

· Jewish Policy Research - a Jewish think-tank - conducted an extensive survey looking into anti-semitism, including on the left (2017). They concluded, and I quote, 'antisemitism is no more prevalent on the left than in the general population'. That's a Jewish think-tank's conclusion.

· A Cross-Party Home Affairs Select Committee was tasked with looking into levels of anti-semitism in the UK (2017). It concluded, and I quote, '...there exists no reliable, empirical evidence to support the notion that there is a higher prevalence of antisemitic attitudes within the Labour Party than any other political party.'

· In 2015, 2016, and 2017 Campaign Against Anti-Semitism conducted a survey of British attitudes towards Jews. It found supporters of the Labour Party were less likely to hold antisemitic views than those of the Conservative Party or the UK Independence Party (UKIP), while those of the Liberal Democrats were the least likely to hold such views.

· Further analysis by Evolve Politics of the CAAS YouGov data indicated antisemitic attitudes had actually *reduced* in Labour under Corbyn.

· The Chakrabarti inquiry looked into the accusations of significant antisemitism in Labour and found no significant problem.

· In 2016, Channel 4 Dispatches programme did a 6 month undercover investigation of Momentum, looking for dirt, including anti-semitism. They found none at all. After six months of undercover investigation.

· A 2019 study by The Economist showed that in the UK those who are 'very left wing' were significantly less likely to be antisemitic compared to those 'very right wing, or even in the centre. However the study also revealed (as did the JPR study) that there are more critical attitudes towards Israel found on the far left.

So, so far as I can see, all the available hard evidence not only fails to support the allegation that Labour has an anti-semitism problem - it directly contradicts that allegation.

Pretty much everyone agrees there are some anti-semites in Labour. Just as everyone agrees that some women are bad drivers. Is there a greater percentage than in the population at large, or in other parties?

Pointing to a bunch of emotive anecdotes supplied by the Press and on social media is not good evidence that there is. And the fact is that all the available hard evidence very strongly suggests there isn't.

Journalism

So how has this myth been generated? Journalists have played a key roll.

The real story regarding 'Labour's anti-semitism problem' is the story of how this myth about Labour being riddled with anti-semitism arose and came to so dominate the British media for so long - on front page after front page after front page - and with such potential significance for the outcome of the next general election.

A recent Birkbeck College London and Media Reform Coalition Research project into Press reporting on anti-semitism recently concluded that British media reporting of allegations of anti-semitism in Labour has involved, and I quote, "a persistent subversion of conventional news values"

In particular, they said, and I quote: "completely false claims were presented as fact, often without even the most basic challenge." Shockingly, the BBC were singled out as one of the very worst offenders.

Conclusion

We all have a moral duty to be vigilant and call out anti-semitism when we see it, but we also have an important moral duty to be careful, calm, and not shoot from hip and fire off accusations on the basis of obviously flimsy or nonexistent evidence.

Those who do fire off accusations cavalierly, without taking care with the evidence are, (i) are disrespecting the memory of the millions who were slaughtered by real antisemitism during the Holocaust, (ii) drawing our attention away from the real anti-semites in our ranks, (iii) crying wolf: making it more likely that genuine reports of a/s will not be believed.

Ironically, all this actually puts Jews at increased risk.

POSTSCRIPT 15/11/19: Of course, criticism of Labour with respect to
antisemitism might still be justified. For example, while there may not
be more antisemitism in Labour or on the Left than elsewhere, and while
it might even have declined under Corbyn, perhaps those instances of
antisemitism that have been identified were not adequately dealt with,
or were dealt with far too slowly (I have some sympathy with this last
charge). It's also possible consistently to maintain that while the
Party and the left are no more antisemitic than the general population,
Jeremy Corbyn is. I take no position here on any of these other charges.

There's an audio on the website for the event I think. I was the only person defending Labour membership against the charge of rampant a/s. The audience was pretty hostile also. I think it's fair to say there was no real response to me.

I am an Australian Jew who is not affiliated with any political party - sometimes voting Liberal, sometimes Labour and sometimes Green. I am highly critical of Netanyahu and appalled by the structural direction of the Israeli polity. I could theoretically be considered anti-Jewish insofar as I might be a radical atheist who thinks that all religions are rubbish or indifferent insofar as I might be a wishy-washy agnostic who thinks everyone has a right to be wrong.

I suspect that there is no more anti-Semitism on the Left than on the Right - probably less so insofar as I view all those right-wingers who "love" Israel with enormous suspicion. They want us to "go back" so that they can be rid of us.

I suspect that there is far more critique of Israel from the Left than from the Right and this becomes conflated with anti-Semitism - with some but not complete justification. In particular, the critique of Israel becomes anti-Semitic when it becomes disproportional and when it ignores the history and the context and thereby takes a one-sided or simplistic view. The disproportionality exists relative to the violence Israel perpetrates and threatens relatively to the violence that other states such as the USA, China, Russia, Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, Turkey, Brazil, Liberation Armies etc... perpetrate and threaten... some continually and some sporadically... now and/or in the not too distant past. The simplistic view is inevitable when a political party has no choice but to offer a simple zero-one, good-bad, yea-nay response without nuance in order to satisfy the simple non-nuanced views of the majority of ideologically passionate members.

As for the BBC - I can never forgive it for footage it showed many years ago in Jenin when it showed an old woman stuck in her wheelchair, unable to move, in the middle of the town square surrounded by Israeli and PLO/Hamas snipers in buildings that were more than likely booby-trapped by the Jenin resisters. The reporter criticised the Israeli soldiers for not going out to help the old woman. The reporter didn't wonder to question how the old woman unable to move got there in the first place. She didn't criticise the PLO/Hamas snipers for not going to her aid. She didn't wonder whether she might not have been put there as bait Hamas/PLO. I can't help but thinking that nobody was able to question the footage because of an institutionalised one-sided perspective on fault as well as the intoxication of having emotive sensational footage that fed into a David-Goliath story. The same one-sidedness was shown when the Peace Ship from Turkey set out to provoke, knowing full well what the Israeli response would be.

Finally, your statistical logic is flawless except that you forget that statistics are political and that there are lies, lies and statistics.

Thanks for the comments - especially Jack's. Jack what do you think of this as a response to your claim that focusing on the bad behaviour of Isreal must be a result of antisemitism? https://conatusnews.com/lefts-antisemitism-problem-focus-israel/

Popular Posts

What is Humanism? “Humanism” is a word that has
had and continues to have a number of meanings. The focus here is on kind of atheistic
world-view espoused by those who organize and campaign under that banner in the
UK and abroad. We should acknowledge that
there remain other uses of term. In one of the loosest senses of the expression,
a “Humanist” is someone whose world-view gives special importance to human
concerns, values and dignity. If that is what a Humanist is, then of course most
of us qualify as Humanists, including many religious theists. But the fact
remains that, around the world, those who organize under the label “Humanism” tend
to sign up to a narrower, atheistic view. What does Humanism,
understood in this narrower way, involve? The boundaries of the concept remain somewhat
vague and ambiguous. However, most of those who organize under the banner of Humanism
would accept the following minimal seven-point characterization of their world-view.

The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of independent ev…

Here is a first half only of a rough draft of a chapter for someone else's book. Feedback please...

Theme is Humanism: reason, science and skepticism

What are science and reason? Humanists
expound the virtues of science and reason. But what are science and reason? And
we should we think it wise to rely on them? By
science, I shall mean that approach to finding out about reality based on the
scientific method. This is a method that was fully developed only a few hundred
years ago. Science, as I’ll use the term here, is a comparatively recent
invention, its development owing a great deal to 16th and 17th Century thinkers
such as the philosopher Francis Bacon (1561-1626). So what
is the scientific method? Here’s a rough sketch. Scientists collect data
through observation and experiment. They formulate hypotheses and broader
theories about the nature of reality to account for what they observe.
Crucially, they then test their
theories. Scientists derive from their theories predictions th…